MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005670253 · doi:10.4000/crdf.3655

La motivation des décisions réglementaires et d’espèce en droit administratif français

2019· article· fr· W3005670253 on OpenAlexaff
Élise Untermaier-Kerléo

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de la recherche sur les droits fondamentaux · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les décisions administratives réglementaires ou d’espèce ne sont pas soumises à une obligation de motivation comparable à celle qui s’impose aux décisions individuelles depuis la loi du 11 juillet 1979, et qui conduit à l’annulation pour vice de forme de l’acte non motivé ou insuffisamment motivé. Toutefois, l’exigence de motivation s’est développée progressivement, sous la forme de rapports, notes, notices, fiches ou documents annexés au projet de décision, voire à la décision finale. L’objectif est d’informer les personnes associées à l’élaboration de l’acte, qu’il s’agisse des membres d’une assemblée délibérante, du public, ou d’entités administratives appelées à se prononcer dans le cadre de l’évaluation préalable des textes normatifs. L’argument selon lequel la présentation des motifs des décisions réglementaires ou d’espèce serait une charge supplémentaire pour les agents publics, aussi inutile que coûteuse, ne peut donc plus justifier l’exclusion de ces actes du champ de la motivation obligatoire.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.232
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de la recherche sur les droits fondamentauxSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207